Is the New Channel Impacting Nebraska's Nuclear Plant Operations?

Click For Summary
The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station's reactor is currently in cold shutdown for refueling and is stable, with no expected release of radioactivity despite recent flooding concerns. The plant has implemented flood protection measures and is prepared for potential river elevation increases. Discussions highlight the importance of addressing aging reactors and maintaining regulatory standards without succumbing to fear-mongering or misinformation. The reliability of U.S. nuclear plants is emphasized, with improvements in safety metrics and operational efficiency noted. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for transparency and informed public discourse regarding nuclear safety.
  • #31
BobG said:
The plant operators risk analysis wasn't done in a facetious manner. They just disagreed so strongly with the NRC's risk assessment that they didn't put forth a good faith effort to increase the protection to the standards the NRC wanted until absolutely forced to.

I find it interesting that they would not feel compelled to put forward a good faith effort to address the NRC observations.

In the pharmaceutical industry such gamesmanship could result in suspension of sales and product recall. In fact FDA inspectors could show up with guns and handcuffs ready to arrest the individuals responsible for toying with public welfare. Is this not the case with the NRC?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
swl said:
I find it interesting that they would not feel compelled to put forward a good faith effort to address the NRC observations.

In the pharmaceutical industry such gamesmanship could result in suspension of sales and product recall. In fact FDA inspectors could show up with guns and handcuffs ready to arrest the individuals responsible for toying with public welfare. Is this not the case with the NRC?

These are the companies that keep the lights on. If they feel their nuclear operations are over-regulated, and thus unprofitable, they could conceivably just shut them down and let the economy take the 10-20% hike in the price of electricity however it may. That's not a scenario any sane government is willing to entertain.

To make matters worse, these companies are de facto monopolies in their respective zones of operation, because of the inefficiencies involved in transmitting electricity over long distances. The lights-out scenario need not play at the national level at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003
 
  • #33
The berm failed, the plant is flooded and on emergency generators. External power lost.
 
  • #34
robinson said:
The berm failed, the plant is flooded and on emergency generators. External power lost.

Source?
EDIT: Associated Press.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwsIdVXW-V7xE60P0dUnI_qSIaIw?docId=252989d1dda94c1d83ee47ba8907e484

"The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant until an off-site power supply was connected Sunday afternoon, according to OPPD."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
tsutsuji said:
A comment about Fort Calhoun in Asian Week :

When the water level downstream of the dam is higher than normal it would be logical that the differential pressure that could fail the dam would be lower that during non-flood conditions. So why would the dam be likely to fail now?
 
  • #36
NUCENG said:
When the water level downstream of the dam is higher than normal it would be logical that the differential pressure that could fail the dam would be lower that during non-flood conditions. So why would the dam be likely to fail now?

There is a lot more water in the system than in normal times so the dam is near maximum capacity. That has more to do with anything than differential pressure which isn't usually a factor.

There are a lot of things involved in a flood; the change in force from a normal river to one at flood stage is something that has to be seen to be believed. There a lot of debries upstream that wants to come dow and it tends to collect into a large mass. Earth berms get soaked and the dirt looses its cohesion. Water going over the top of a dam quickly erodes even concrete. Temporary dams of junk form and suddenly release, which can increase the force in the system briefly and cause break throughs.


It is easy to underestimate what a couple of feet of water can do (ask the Japanese about that one.) Never drive through a flooded street, nor go kyaking on a flooded river. (I drove over a flooded bridge once which turned out not to be the smartest move of my life; if you can't be good be lucky...)
 
  • #37
This is what drives me nuts about the circle the wagons mentality whenver there is a nuclear "oopsie".

The Omaha Public Power District has said the complex will not be reactivated until the flooding subsides. Its spokesman, Jeff Hanson, said the berm wasn't critical to protecting the plant but a crew will look at whether it can be patched.

"That was an additional layer of protection we put in," Hansom said.

OK, so this dam wasn't important or anything, they just put it in there as a backup. Redundancy, multiple lines of defence, defence in depth and all that good stuff.

The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant until an off-site power supply was connected Sunday afternoon, according to OPPD.

Somehow that negates the idea that this was a non-critical backup just to be on the safe side...
 
  • #38
Orcas George said:
There is a lot more water in the system than in normal times so the dam is near maximum capacity. That has more to do with anything than differential pressure which isn't usually a factor.

There are a lot of things involved in a flood; the change in force from a normal river to one at flood stage is something that has to be seen to be believed. There a lot of debries upstream that wants to come dow and it tends to collect into a large mass. Earth berms get soaked and the dirt looses its cohesion. Water going over the top of a dam quickly erodes even concrete. Temporary dams of junk form and suddenly release, which can increase the force in the system briefly and cause break throughs.


It is easy to underestimate what a couple of feet of water can do (ask the Japanese about that one.) Never drive through a flooded street, nor go kyaking on a flooded river. (I drove over a flooded bridge once which turned out not to be the smartest move of my life; if you can't be good be lucky...)

Thank you,. I claim no expertise in civil engineering, and that is a little counter-intuitive. If the dam is near capacity are they releasing water?
 
  • #40
NUCENG said:
Thank you,. I claim no expertise in civil engineering, and that is a little counter-intuitive. If the dam is near capacity are they releasing water?

Releasing water to where, exactly? I mean, what are you asking?
 
  • #42
zapperzero said:
Slightly(?) offtopic. Minot is being flooded.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/minot-north-dakota-residents-flee-nuclear-silos-protected/story?id=13913535
Minuteman III nuclear missile silos are also in the flood's path. At least two silos are being protected by sandbags and pumps, but are reported to be safe.

Nothing to worry about there. If the silos are flooded the missiles can not launch. I would expect that the warheads would have been removed days before any serious flooding scenario, but even if they weren't, they would cause no problem other than the fact that they would have to be retired from present service and ten tons of paperwork would have to be filed with all of the military agencies that would be involved. I was a Nuclear Weapons Officer at one time. Believe me, you do not want to do that paperwork.
 
  • #43
NUCENG said:
Thank you,. I claim no expertise in civil engineering, and that is a little counter-intuitive. If the dam is near capacity are they releasing water?

Yes, which is why it is flooding downstream of the dam(s). The odd thing to realize is that these floods are "controlled"; the engineers have to make the heartbreaking decision to flood the towns downstream in order to prevent an uncontrolled dam collapse. Obviously the natural tendency is to hold off doing it as long as possible in hopes that it stops raining but the longer you wait the worse it gets if you have to do it. This is one reason why NOAA (the national weather forecasting office) is such a critical resource to the country.
 
  • #44
NUCENG said:
Thank you,. I claim no expertise in civil engineering, and that is a little counter-intuitive. If the dam is near capacity are they releasing water?

In the overwhelming majority of dams I have seen close up, the spilling of water when they reach rated capacity is usually built right into the dam design, with the spillway designed to carry any water in excess of the rated maximum water height limit. I suppose you could sand bag the tops of the spillways to try to retain more water if you wanted to.

Off topic. It is a shame that we can not divert that flood water every spring to west of the Rockies. We sure could use it in the states further west. We could actually put people to work in agriculture in Arizona, Nevada, and California if only we could get it to the Colorado River.
 
  • #45
The dams are supposed to used for flood control. There is much irony that they have led to the record flooding instead.
 
  • #46
Joe Neubarth said:
Nothing to worry about there. If the silos are flooded the missiles can not launch. I would expect that the warheads would have been removed days before any serious flooding scenario, but even if they weren't, they would cause no problem other than the fact that they would have to be retired from present service and ten tons of paperwork would have to be filed with all of the military agencies that would be involved. I was a Nuclear Weapons Officer at one time. Believe me, you do not want to do that paperwork.

I don't think it's any sort of danger either. The thought of those missiles maybe drowning in mud made me giggle a bit, in fact, unlike that other little mishap at Minot a few years ago which still gives me the nuclear heebie-jeebies whenever I think about it.
 
  • #48
zapperzero said:
Releasing water to where, exactly? I mean, what are you asking?

In past years I have been in areas with flooding and was always told the worst thing for a dam is "over-topping" or water overflowing the dam itself. So most dams in this area have spillways to allow flow downstream to prevent that condition which could lead to dam failure. My understanding, may be wrong, so I'm asking if the dam upstream of Ft Calhoun is releasing water?
 
  • #49
All the dams are releasing water. If an old Earth fill/chalk damn is over topped it will fail. They have the spillways full open and are praying nothing more will happen.
 
  • #51
zapperzero said:
I don't think it's any sort of danger either. The thought of those missiles maybe drowning in mud made me giggle a bit, in fact, unlike that other little mishap at Minot a few years ago which still gives me the nuclear heebie-jeebies whenever I think about it.
That incident was embarrassing to the Air Force but not THAT dangerous unless the plane carrying the weapon system crashed. Of course that can happen any time you transport a weapon via air in cargo planes. Weapons being returned are supposed to be separated from their delivery vehicle. In this case the young men involved did not understand that and just shipped the whole assembly on the wing of a plane back to the facility where they had the capacity to remove the weapon.
 
  • #52
Joe Neubarth said:
That incident was embarrassing to the Air Force but not THAT dangerous unless the plane carrying the weapon system crashed. Of course that can happen any time you transport a weapon via air in cargo planes. Weapons being returned are supposed to be separated from their delivery vehicle. In this case the young men involved did not understand that and just shipped the whole assembly on the wing of a plane back to the facility where they had the capacity to remove the weapon.

The issue was the result of a number of people assuming that the multiple required checks to ensure that no weapons were inside the missiles were done and that "there's no way everyone didn't check this already". Which in fact was what happened. We have a term for that in the Air Force: Complacency. The people involved never knew the weapons were even loaded until after the plane landed and the weapons were found.

The weapons themselves were never in any danger, like you said, but as seen in the past B-52's do crash, so better safe than sorry!
 
  • #53
Drakkith said:
The issue was the result of a number of people assuming that the multiple required checks to ensure that no weapons were inside the missiles were done and that "there's no way everyone didn't check this already". Which in fact was what happened. We have a term for that in the Air Force: Complacency. The people involved never knew the weapons were even loaded until after the plane landed and the weapons were found.

The weapons themselves were never in any danger, like you said, but as seen in the past B-52's do crash, so better safe than sorry!

When I went through Nuclear Weapons School they told us to NEVER sign off on anything unless we are absolutely certain that it has been done according to the book. That screw up in the Dakotas was a perfect example of young people trying to brush off the paperwork.

An age old Military axiom comes to mind: "You get what you INSPECT."
 
  • #54
Joe Neubarth said:
When I went through Nuclear Weapons School they told us to NEVER sign off on anything unless we are absolutely certain that it has been done according to the book. That screw up in the Dakotas was a perfect example of young people trying to brush off the paperwork.

An age old Military axiom comes to mind: "You get what you INSPECT."

Take the "Young" out of "Young People" and you've hit that on the head.
 
  • #55
  • #56
Joe Neubarth said:
That incident was embarrassing to the Air Force but not THAT dangerous unless the plane carrying the weapon system crashed. Of course that can happen any time you transport a weapon via air in cargo planes. Weapons being returned are supposed to be separated from their delivery vehicle. In this case the young men involved did not understand that and just shipped the whole assembly on the wing of a plane back to the facility where they had the capacity to remove the weapon.

I don't know... I can see some overeager young'uns loading them on a pylon. I don't see how they got them out of their bunker in the first place and I don't see how come the pilots did not have any indication of what they were carrying.

Plus, Minot AFB was certainly qualified and equipped to offload weapons. Plus, they were supposed to be shipping just shapes that day, not weapons. Lots of things wrong with the story, such as it got out. Enough to give one pause.
 
  • #57
Meanwhile, at Fort Calhoun, they are pumping water out of the turbine building basement.
 
  • #58
Not according to their reports. Everything is just fine.
 
  • #59
swl said:
From the link above:
"Fort Calhoun was designed for floods up to 1014 feet above sea level, and the current flood stands at 1006 feet."

If it was designed for floods up to 1014 feet, why is it already flooding at 1006 feet?
Is this an example of failure within design basis?

I live out in Southern California where we think a sprinkle is rain. Most people who have lived out here do not understand real rain or swollen rivers. There is a rumor that back in 1905 the San Diego River (For the past 106 years, essentially a creek) flooded from bank to bank (a half mile or more across.). Most of the young people here do not have a clue what could happen if we received a hundred year flood. San Diego Stadium (Where the Super Bowl has been played) would be out of sight under the water. Not only that, but thousands of apartments, business offices, Condos, my favorite restaurant and twenty hotels would all be gone. Yep, all of that new development was built on the 100 year flood plain.

Now, that is a perfect example of a lack of preparation for what happens in 100 year floods. When the waters rise in the midwest, the ground becomes saturated and seepage can go into basements. If the plant was designed for a 100 year flood, they have pumps in the basement that can easily handle the seepage. It looks like they are working. Thank God!
 
  • #60
Why would the turbine rooms be below flood level? Or critical electrical rooms. Sounds like Fukushima.
 

Similar threads

Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Where to find detailed control panel pictures of nuclear plants?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
New Salt Cooled Nuclear Reactor Approved by NRC
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
NRC Reversing License Extensions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Nuclear Plant Batteries: Technology, Lifespan, and Impact on Battery Advancement
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Volanic Ash and Nuclear Power Plants
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Chinese fuel reprocessing plant, store Kr-85
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
What is the fixed cost vs. variable cost breakdown for a nuclear power plant?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant Issues
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
Can Nuclear Reactors Serve as Peaker Plants?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K